It's a tricky thing to define. To my ears, it's defined by the early Mississippi masters. The music they made there acoustically, and the adaptations they made to it with electric instruments up in Chicago. Tempo would be a part of that definition, mostly it's going to be on the slower side. It gets hot down there, you don't want to move to quickly. And you don't want to move too much either, so not so many notes in it either. I'm only half kidding, and yes it all falls apart when you move to Chicago.

I don't want you to confuse what I'm saying with the attitudes of a blues purist (or a blues nazi as they're sometimes called). I'm all for modifying and tweaking this base sound. Doesn't have to be black or white or American or English. In the right hands it's a good thing.

But don't forget about the Texas Blues such as the music of Blind Lemon Jefferson and T-Bone Walker. And John Lee Hooker's unique free form approach coming out of Detroit.

I'm not sure he took it far from it. Simple was part of my definition. Lotta Hooker tunes are of the one chord variety.

Texas covers alot of ground. And yet. Got that monotonic bass of a Mance Libscomb, that's similar to a Hooker one chord tune which is similar to a droning Mississippi guy. In fact alot of Jefferson he's just thumping away on one bass note. Jazzing up the rhythm of it sure, and there's much going on on top of that, but still.

Well, some would say that electrified Blues is not as pure as acoustic Blues. Is one form more pure than the other?

How about replacing "authentic" for "pure"? That's what I was thinking, and (going back to my OP regarding the article that got this whole thread started) what the author meant.

I took it (for starters) as music that's played by blues musicians, not rock musicians who either play blues-infused rock, or blues-inspired rock. That's what the author had issues with in the first place. It wasn't a criticism, it was his premise that rockers took the blues and ran with it, and blues musicians were left behind somehow, and have not flourished in the same way. He looked at the issue from a cultural heritage standpoint as well.

That was the concern. Rock has taken off in all directions, and while the authentic, original blues musicians are given credit for being an 'influence', they have somehow been left behind, or are in the second tier of importance, rather than the first tier.

But I think the forum is more progressive, based on the comments. :)

The blues always were, and always will be, a genre that does not have the exposure that rock music has had, so for starters, it's not appropriate to compare the two. Secondly, what Slim, dd, and others said about "fashion" and music trends calms down the argument as well. You're right, the trends come and go in all genres, and while the authentic / original / straight sound will always have some followers, the original bliues music can also comfortably be placed into a historical reference point, and that doesn't mean it's being dissed in any way. You're right; that music just does not have broad appeal, and the truth is, it never did. It was regional, and that's how it made its way through pockets of the country. As it stands today, no doubt there are many more blues clubs in other cities of the country than there are in Boston.

Well, some would say that electrified Blues is not as pure as acoustic Blues. Is one form more pure than the other?

Some would say that, I wouldn't. I will say that without the acoustic Mississippi masters setting it all up, that the Chicago sound would be different.

As soon as I said 'pure blues' I knew I was in an untenable position. Looking back in this thread I can see that what I intended was 'straight blues'. I was talking about performances. Now Clapton, for one example, he is a blues player. But he's doing rock and pop in addition to the blues. BB King is sticking to just the blues. And that was really the distinction I was trying to make originally.

The problem for me is putting any adjective in front of a general genre of music. I think we can legitimately and broadly define what Blues, Jazz, Country, Folk, Reggae, and Rock are, to name a few of the general categories. It's when we attempt to narrow down these categories that I think we try to draw distinct lines that often are really fuzzy lines.

Using your example of B.B. King, what about the songs "Into The Night" and "When Love Comes To Town"? Yes, B.B mainly sticks to the Blues, but to me his music at times borders on Soul and Pop Blues. (Yes, I just broke my own rule).

How about replacing "authentic" for "pure"? That's what I was thinking, and (going back to my OP regarding the article that got this whole thread started) what the author meant.

I took it (for starters) as music that's played by blues musicians, not rock musicians who either play blues-infused rock, or blues-inspired rock. That's what the author had issues with in the first place. It wasn't a criticism, it was his premise that rockers took the blues and ran with it, and blues musicians were left behind somehow, and have not flourished in the same way. He looked at the issue from a cultural heritage standpoint as well.

That was the concern. Rock has taken off in all directions, and while the authentic, original blues musicians are given credit for being an 'influence', they have somehow been left behind, or are in the second tier of importance, rather than the first tier.

But I think the forum is more progressive, based on the comments. :)

The blues always were, and always will be, a genre that does not have the exposure that rock music has had, so for starters, it's not appropriate to compare the two. Secondly, what Slim, dd, and others said about "fashion" and music trends calms down the argument as well. You're right, the trends come and go in all genres, and while the authentic / original / straight sound will always have some followers, the original bliues music can also comfortably be placed into a historical reference point, and that doesn't mean it's being dissed in any way. You're right; that music just does not have broad appeal, and the truth is, it never did. It was regional, and that's how it made its way through pockets of the country. As it stands today, no doubt there are many more blues clubs in other cities of the country than there are in Boston.

It seems to me there is agreement here. Not easy to articulate. :)

Just to reiterate, I think that music if often a product of it's particular time and place. And its best practitioners were only around for a limited time. These unique sounds can never be recreated. The basic form may remain, but the the circumstances that created certain sounds will never be duplicated.

While different genres inevitably inform and nurture each other - due mostly to their proximity in the time continuum and less to their relative popularity...

The Blues are a inherent part of Rock N' Roll music from the beginning.

But Rock N' Roll is not a inherent part of Blues music - which definitely came first. I also believe that Blues players picked up the electric guitar before the RockNRollers (Rockabillies) did, but that might be splitting hairs.

And needless to say, the culture out of which the Blues emerged has been fundamentally and permanently transformed. So Perhaps it's easier to think of it as a question of "Classic" vs. "Modern" Blues as opposed to "pure" vs. "synthetic".